#Senate passes CFR, 60-40
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
By ROBERT PEAR
ASHINGTON, March 20 — The Senate approved a bill this afternoon
that would overhaul the nation's campaign finance laws to a degree not
seen since
the Watergate scandal nearly three decades ago.
The measure passed by a 60-to-40 vote around 4:45 p.m. Eastern time.
Supporters of the legislation had been confident all day that they had
the votes to pass it,
but the relatively wide margin in the end contrasted with the
contentiousness over the issue.
"This bill won't fix every problem in our campaign finance system;
this bill won't miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of congress
overnight; it won't completely
end the primacy of money in politics," said Senator Russell D.
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who along with Senator John McCain,
the Arizona Republican, is
the prime sponsor of the bill. "But this bill is a step in the right
direction; it's a big step in the right direction."
The legislation cleared a major procedural hurdle earlier this
afternoon when the Senate voted 68 to 32 to end three days of debate
on the bill and to move toward
passage.
"After so many years of effort and so many disappointments, the public
has reason to be gratified by what we are about to do," Mr. Feingold
said, "and to look with hope to what we can accomplish together with
the monkey of soft money finally lifted from our backs."
Longtime Republican opponents of the measure had conceded that they
would not be able to prevent passage of the bill.
Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas and an ardent opponent of
the bill, said he was concerned the bill would interfere with the
right of free speech.
"There is an inconvenience in free speech if people are not saying
what you want them to say," Mr. Gramm said. "But is it not profoundly
dangerous to end their ability to speak?"
He said passage of the bill could lead to "a concentration of power in
the media and in special interest groups that use the media."
Congress has been debating the campaign finance bill for seven years.
The legislation passed by the Senate today would ban the large
unlimited donations to the national political parties known as soft
money.
Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky and the leading
opponent of the campaign finance bill, said Tuesday that he still
thought major parts of it were unconstitutional, but he acknowledged,
"It's clear that position is not going to prevail."
The campaign finance bill passed the House last month, 240 to 189, so
the Senate passage will send it directly to President Bush. While he
once campaigned against the measure, Mr. Bush has made no real effort
to stop its passage, and aides say they expect him to sign it.
***************
"...there was insufficient available evidence to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that the president and Mrs. Clinton knowingly gave
false statements, committed perjury or otherwise obstructed
investigations. . . . "
Final Report from "Not-With-A-Bang-But-A-Whimper" Ray
****************
For the best in liberal/leftist commentary, visit
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To subscribe to Zepp's News and Commentaries, email
zeppnewsandcomme...@yahoogroups.com
For essays ONLY, email zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
bob
"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
> Senate Vote, 60-40, Caps Seven-Year Campaign Reform Debate
>
> By ROBERT PEAR
>
> "This bill won't fix every problem in our campaign finance
> system;
> this bill won't miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of congress
> overnight; it won't completely
> end the primacy of money in politics," said Senator Russell D.
> Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who along with Senator John McCain,
> the Arizona Republican, is
> the prime sponsor of the bill.
<snip>
> "After so many years of effort and so many disappointments, the public
> has reason to be gratified by what we are about to do," Mr. Feingold
> said, "and to look with hope to what we can accomplish together with
> the monkey of soft money finally lifted from our backs."
Why, when he himself admits it won't accomplish what he wants?
Bob
N9NWO
bob wrote:
What their goal was, as expressed by McCain, was to stop the negative ads by
other groups that forced the general public to realize that these guys had
major problems. It was ruining their image.
Now, since this bill is passed, how do we use to put the neo-liberals, the
socialists and other extreme left wing groups permanently out of business?
Weasel Zepp
wrote:
He calls it a first step. What he and I both want is to remove
private funding from campaigns altogether.
>
>
>Bob
**************************************
"If Laura Bush truly wants her gown to reflect the tone of this inaugural
she ought to shoplift it."
-- San Francisco Chronicle 1/4/01
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
To subscribe to Zepp's News and Commentaries, email me at ze...@snowcrest.net with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject header.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries/zeppol.htm
To purchase a CD collection of Zepp's Commentary, 125 essays, go to
http://www.zeppscommentaries/form_to_order_cd.htm
Le Mod Pol
You don't!!! Nor will it put the fascists and other extreme
right wing groups out of business.
aren't you lucky, N9NWO?????
`(:~)>
N9NWO
The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
out of business.
Mike Skutnik
> The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> out of business.
And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician within the 60 day
window of an election is defined as an 'extremist.'
Anyone.
Nice country we have, eh?
Regards,
MIke
N9NWO
If you "want" a voice, join the party.
Actually we no longer have political
parties with a set of balls as we had
back in the '60s. After Watergate,
each congressman became a political
party in and of himself.
Got My Mind Right, Boss!
donating shit loads of money to get their political "voices"
are "extremists" now?
Hahahahah!
Matt Harbon
Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
get his message out.
I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private
money and the justice system should not mix. Likewise private money
and elections should not mix. Why? Its obvious. Because the richer
guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
"get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
the logic that is neeeded.
Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
That is the goal.
-MH
P.S. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the
hell you want whenever the hell you want.
Keith A Flick
news:a677bf4.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Mike Skutnik <msk...@big.spam.net.net> wrote in message
news:<3C99B4E5...@big.spam.net.net>...
> > N9NWO wrote:
> >
> > > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> > > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> > > out of business.
> >
> > And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician within
the 60 day
> > window of an election is defined as an 'extremist.'
> >
> > Anyone.
> >
> > Nice country we have, eh?
> >
> > Regards,
> > MIke
>
> Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
>
> You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
> tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
> mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
> get his message out.
How does a "poor man" get his message out? He joins a
special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
are the very people who will be muzzled. Do you really think
that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
their message out after this bill is signed? Only the "poor
people" will be stopped.
> I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private
> money and the justice system should not mix. Likewise private money
> and elections should not mix. Why? Its obvious. Because the richer
> guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
>
> How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> the logic that is neeeded.
This law doesn't change that at all. If you have money you can spend
all you want on the election, if you don't have any you aren't allowed
to raise as much as you can to get the word out. This law discriminates
against the "poor candidate".
Candidate #1 has 1,000,000 supporters, Candidate #2 has 100,000
supporters and they all send in $10. Is that fair in your opinion?
Candidate #1 is supported by the local TV station and Candidate #2 is
not. #1 gets good, supporting coverage and #2 is always covered in
a negative manner. Is that fair in your opinion? With the new rules
the people who support the same things he does can't work (or pay)
to help support him against the free publicity the other guy gets.
> Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
> That is the goal.
>
> -MH
>
> P.S. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the
> hell you want whenever the hell you want.
Actually, as far as public discourse is concerned, it does.
Jeffrey Davis
Keith A Flick wrote:
> How does a "poor man" get his message out? He joins a
> special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
> are the very people who will be muzzled. Do you really think
> that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> their message out after this bill is signed? Only the "poor
> people" will be stopped.
Maybe, but an awful lot of rich people are opposed to this
law. In politics, the first rule is you judge a man (or a
law) by his (or its) enemies.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> By this time, my lungs
were aching for air!
Mike Skutnik
> Mike Skutnik <msk...@big.spam.net.net> wrote in message news:<3C99B4E5...@big.spam.net.net>...
> > N9NWO wrote:
> >
> > > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> > > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> > > out of business.
> >
> > And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician within the 60 day window of an
> election is defined as an 'extremist.'
> >
> > Anyone.
> >
> > Nice country we have, eh?
> >
>
>
> Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
>
> You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
> tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
> mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
> get his message out.
You can't have a bunch of smart, well educated, fraternity types tilting the course of an election
through hugely influential media mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the 'dumb man' to
get his message out.
> I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private
> money and the justice system should not mix. Likewise private money
> and elections should not mix. Why? Its obvious. Because the richer
> guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private lawyers and the justice system should
not mix. Likewise, smart politicians and elections should not mix. Why? It is obvious. Because the
smarter guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
> How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> the logic that is neeeded.
Why didn't Steve Forbes win then?
Your analysis is very wrong. The only election financing rule should be full disclosure. I should be
able to spend *my* money on a campaign, to the very last of my pennies.
> Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
> That is the goal.
It is not possible. *All* money is private. Besides, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Regards,
Mike
N9NWO
NEWS ANALYSIS
Surprises lurking in finance overhaul
Bush could benefit from bill expected to pass Senate today
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/03/20/MN58014.DTL
Washington -- On its face, there is nothing sinister about the radio
ad broadcast in Chicago this week.
"As speaker of the house, Rep. (Dennis) Hastert has the power to stop
the delays and bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, up for a
vote in Congress," a female voice intones. "Send Speaker Hastert a letter
urging him to support fairness and bring ENDA to the floor."
The 30-second commercial was paid for by the American Civil Liberties
Union.
Under the campaign finance measure expected to be approved today by
the Senate, the ad would be illegal.
After a seven-year legislative odyssey, many people are familiar with
the campaign bill's core feature -- a ban on huge, soft-money donations to
political parties. But much in the legislation -- like restrictions on TV
and radio commercials -- will surprise all but the most devoted students
of federal election codes.
Few people are aware of provisions that restrict money spent
registering voters, that double the size of legal contributions to
candidates or that prevent nonpartisan organizations such as the ACLU from
mentioning a candidate's name on TV or radio within 60 days of an
election.
And only recently has there been a recognition that the politician
most likely to benefit from the new rules is President Bush.
As the Senate prepares for its final vote on campaign finance reform,
even the experts are confounded. Interviews with scores of party
officials, strategists, issue advocates and academics reveal great
uncertainty about the ultimate effect of the bill, the most sweeping in a
generation.
Like throwing a large boulder in the gushing stream, most experts
agree that the reforms will alter the flow of money into political
campaigns. There is great dispute, however, about whether the obstacles
will stem the flow of money, or merely divert it in new directions.
SURPRISES PREDICTED
"It could be called the law of unintended consequences," said Chuck
Cunningham, director of federal affairs for the National Rifle
Association, who opposes the bill on constitutional grounds, although his
organization is expected to benefit from it.
Senate approval today appears certain, as opponents conceded
yesterday that they lack the votes to further delay the measure.
"It's over," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a driving force over the
past seven years for the bill that once bore his name. "It's a fine
moment."
The House passed the bill last month. Once the Senate follows, it
will go to Bush, who despite his vigorous opposition during the 2000
presidential campaign, has signaled he will sign it.
Some see the measure as a step toward restoring the faith of
Americans who are growing increasingly cynical about the influence of
money on policy decisions. Others say that just as the post-Watergate
reforms of almost 30 years ago gave birth to political action committees
and soft money, the latest efforts will only create their own monsters.
Among the conclusions of experts:
-- Politicians will be forced to spend more time raising smaller
amounts of money from a larger pool of people, curtailing the practice of
providing access or perks for big-dollar donors.
-- National political parties will diminish in influence as they lose
a combined $500 million in soft money donations.
-- Incumbents will have an easier time winning re-election as
challengers find that their best source of money -- the national political
parties -- have fewer resources.
-- Interest groups with large membership bases -- like the Sierra
Club and the National Rifle Association -- will become more powerful as
they fill the vacuum.
-- Large, politically active companies, such as big law firms, will
gain influence because their ability to bundle many small donations will
become more important than the power to tap a smaller number of large
donors.
-- State and local political parties -- still allowed to accept
$10,000 soft money donations -- will step up their fund-raising efforts to
replace money from the national headquarters.
Though Democrats in Washington have lined up almost unanimously in
support, there is skepticism at the grassroots level.
'BOONDOGGLE FOR CONSULTANTS'
"It's not good government," said Art Torres, chairman of the
California Democratic Party. Torres said the new law will impose
restrictive new formulas about how much money he can spend on voter
registration and get-out-the-vote drives, forcing him to "rethink" the
party's budget.
"It's a boondoggle for consultants and accountants," said Torres,
whose comments put him at odds with the public statements of leaders at
the Democratic National Committee.
Privately, many Democrats worry that Republicans are in better shape
to raise the hard dollars that under the new law can be contributed in
$2,000 increments, twice the old amount.
Democrats, in large part due to former President Bill Clinton's
drawing power, had pulled almost even with Republicans in soft money, but
lag far behind in direct individual contributions.
The undisputed king of hard dollars is Bush, who raised $103 million
during the Republican primaries in $1,000 increments from more than 10,000
donors. Bush's list of donors -- who are allowed to give twice as much
under the new law -- is likely to grow with incumbency. Meanwhile, his
Democratic challenger won't be able to close the gap with issue ads
sponsored by the national party and paid for with soft money.
The issue ads raise another problem, which will almost certainly be
decided by the Supreme Court.
The ACLU's ad in Chicago, on behalf of a bill banning job
discrimination against gays and lesbians, would be illegal because it
mentions a candidate's name -- Hastert -- within 30 days of a primary, in
this case yesterday's primary election in Illinois. The ACLU could choose
to form a political action committee and pay for such ads through
donations reported to the Federal Elections Committee, but it says it will
not do that.
Conservative and liberal activists disagree about which side -- and
which political party -- will gain most from the new law.
It's a sign of the bill's success, said Scott Harshbarger, president
of Common Cause and one of the measure's leading advocates.
"You know it is important because of the way everyone is reacting
inside the Beltway. This is a very significant step."
Finance reform at a glance Here are the main provisions of the
campaign finance measure scheduled for a vote today in the Senate:
-- -- Soft money: Bans the unlimited contributions to national
political parties.
-- Hard money: Raises the limit for individual contributions to House
and Senate candidates per election from $1,000 to $2,000 and, for
contributions to national parties, from $20,000 to $25,000 per calendar
year.
-- Advertising: Bans unions, corporations and independent groups from
broadcasting issue advertisements within 60 days of an election or 30 days
of a primary. Political action committee money could still be used for
such ads.
-- Provisions: Tells the Supreme Court it should judge each provision
individually and not view legislation on an all-or-nothing basis.
-- Effective date: Nov. 6, 2002 -- the day after the general
election.
E-mail Marc Sandalow at msan...@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/03/20/MN58014.DTL
David Lentz
N9NWO wrote:
<snip>
> The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> out of business.
No, you can criticize government or any particular branch of
government. What you can't is criticize a politician by name.
You can say the government is corrupt. The Senate is corrupt.
The Senate Commerce Committee is corrupt. However if you say
John McCain is corrupt the feds put you in jail.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
David Lentz
Matt Harbon wrote:
<snip.
> Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
Bull.
The purpose of campaign finance reform to prevent anybody from
calling the rotten crook John McCain a rotten crook. McCain can
call you anything he wishes. On the other hand, you are not
legally allowed to criticize him. Maybe McCain can call this
crime blastphemy, as McCain wanted to treated as if he were a
god.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
RD Thompson
> If you "want" a voice, join the party.
> Actually we no longer have political
> parties with a set of balls as we had
> back in the '60s. After Watergate,
> each congressman became a political
> party in and of himself.
>
Partisanship started a long time before Watergate. We have always had
folks that have pulled the same party lever for generations; Doesn't take
much thought.
--
Sleep well tonight.........
RD (The Sandman)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rdsandman
Whether a gun is used to save a life or to illegally
take one, the only difference is whose hands are
in control of that gun. The gun itself is neutral.
RD Thompson
news:a677bf4.02032...@posting.google.com:
> Mike Skutnik <msk...@big.spam.net.net> wrote in message
> news:<3C99B4E5...@big.spam.net.net>...
>> N9NWO wrote:
>>
>> > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
>> > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
>> > out of business.
>>
>> And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician
>> within the 60 day window of an election is defined as an 'extremist.'
>>
>> Anyone.
>>
>> Nice country we have, eh?
>>
>> Regards,
>> MIke
>
> Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
>
> You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
> tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
> mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
> get his message out.
You will still have that. Who do you think will get an audience with the
president first....you or the CEO of IBM? You or Jesse Jackson or Al
Sharpton?
> I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private
> money and the justice system should not mix. Likewise private money
> and elections should not mix. Why? Its obvious. Because the richer
> guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
Just where has that changed? Instead of Bill Rich Guy making a 100,000
dollar contribution, he will have 50 Joe Sixpacks give 2000 dollar
contributions to the same cause or candidate.
> How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> the logic that is neeeded.
That also only really changes in the last 60 days.
> Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
> That is the goal.
But they have not really done that.
> P.S. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the
> hell you want whenever the hell you want.
Of course it does.....there may be ramifications to what you say, but you
can still say it....no one stole your tongue.
RD Thompson
news:u9kh18o...@corp.supernews.com:
> How does a "poor man" get his message out? He joins a
> special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
> are the very people who will be muzzled. Do you really think
> that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> their message out after this bill is signed? Only the "poor
> people" will be stopped.
>
You are exactly right. The person hurt is the little person who only had
the special interest groups to speak for him. The VIPs will carry on as
usual.
Le Mod Pol
Yeah - read Dreshowitz' book "Shouting Fire" !!!!!!!! That
is what it is all about and he is the leading authority on
"free Speech".
Le Mod Pol
>
> N9NWO wrote:
>
> > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> > out of business.
>
> And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician within the 60 day
> window of an election is defined as an 'extremist.'
>
said in all their advertising - at least in the last 60 days.
All advertising for candidates should be placed by the
candidate (or his official agent) and paid for out of his
legitimate campaign funds
That way if an ad says candidate A's wife is a ho',
candidate B can not disavow it. Sort of like keeps them honest.
What we need most is honesty in politics ........ do you
think we will ever really see it??
Le Mod Pol
I notice that you were not mentioning the ultra conservative
repugs, fascists, militias, and the ultra right 'secret'
associations to which half or more of the present
administration belong.
Bribing legislators is not "free speech" but CFR will
certainly limit the clout to outfits like NRA, enron.
microsoft, the Tobacco lobby, Trial lawyers, AMA, labor
unions, the insurance lobby etc.
That is a pretty broad spectrum so I think that while it
will soft pedal the wingnuts perhaps others within the
spectrum will not feel it so much.
`(:~)>
Le Mod Pol
Wrong it will loosen the muzzle he already wears somewhat.
> Do you really think
> that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> their message out after this bill is signed?
They will restricted to press releases and campaign
contributions. They will not be able to hide behind "associations"
> Only the "poor people" will be stopped.
There is a lot that the "poor people" can do to help their
favorite candidate's campaign without spending money and
grass roots campaigning has won a lot of elections..... far
more than the big media hypes.
> >
> > P.S. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the
> > hell you want whenever the hell you want.
>
> Actually, as far as public discourse is concerned, it does.
Read Alan Dershowitz new book "Shouting Fire". Prof
Dershowitz is the leading authority on "free speech" and his
book is just about that. The title refers to "shouting fire
in a crowded theater" for which you could go to prison for life.
Le Mod Pol
course it takes one to know one!!!
Mike Skutnik
> Mike Skutnik wrote:
> >
> >
> > And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician >within the 60
> day window of an election is defined as an 'extremist.'
> >
> That simply makes the candidates "responsible" for what is
> said in all their advertising - at least in the last 60 days.
>
> All advertising for candidates should be placed by the
> candidate (or his official agent) and paid for out of his
> legitimate campaign funds
>
> That way if an ad says candidate A's wife is a ho',
> candidate B can not disavow it. Sort of like keeps them honest.
>
> What we need most is honesty in politics ........ do you
> think we will ever really see it??
I will see it about the same time as USENET becomes a civil place to discuss ideas and
respectfully trade information about various topics.
Regards,
Mike
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com>
>Subject: Re: #Senate passes CFR, 60-40
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:00:41 -0500
>What we need most is honesty in politics ........ do you
>think we will ever really see it??
Sure, if we are allowed to call a crooked politician a crooked politician.
This law makes it illegal when it really counts.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: mhar...@hotmail.com (Matt Harbon)
>Subject: Re: #Senate passes CFR, 60-40
>You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
>tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
>mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
>get his message out.
This law has two parts. The bit about soft money is blatantly
unconstitutional and will be tossed out as soon as the supremes get hold of
it. An essentially identical one was in the late 70's. This leaves the
increase in hard money conributions, which is probably what this law is
really about.
Dr P
Le Mod Pol
No but you have to have the proof out front first
N9NWO
: > > You don't!!! Nor will it put the fascists and other extreme
: > > right wing groups out of business.
: > >
: > > aren't you lucky, N9NWO?????
: >
: > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
: > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
: > out of business.
:
: I notice that you were not mentioning the ultra conservative
: repugs, fascists, militias, and the ultra right 'secret'
: associations to which half or more of the present
: administration belong.
:
: Bribing legislators is not "free speech" but CFR will
: certainly limit the clout to outfits like NRA, enron.
: microsoft, the Tobacco lobby, Trial lawyers, AMA, labor
: unions, the insurance lobby etc.
:
: That is a pretty broad spectrum so I think that while it
: will soft pedal the wingnuts perhaps others within the
: spectrum will not feel it so much.
The NRA is exempt while unions will be limited.
Also state political parties are exempt. The CFR
hurts the democrats far more than it hurts the GOP.
Matt Harbon
>
> How does a "poor man" get his message out? He joins a
> special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
> are the very people who will be muzzled. Do you really think
> that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> their message out after this bill is signed? Only the "poor
> people" will be stopped.
>
Wrong. The poor won't be stopped. Because they never had an equal
voice to begin with. Let me tell you... very few poor people have any
voice at all.
>
> > I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private
> > money and the justice system should not mix. Likewise private money
> > and elections should not mix. Why? Its obvious. Because the richer
> > guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
> >
> > How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> > dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> > "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> > the logic that is neeeded.
>
> This law doesn't change that at all. If you have money you can spend
> all you want on the election, if you don't have any you aren't allowed
> to raise as much as you can to get the word out. This law discriminates
> against the "poor candidate".
>
It DOES NOT. The law is a step towards evening out the playing field.
The more money is taken out of elections... the better.
>
> Actually, as far as public discourse is concerned, it does.
>
No. It doesn't. You can't cry wolf in a theater. You can't harass
someone verbally. You can't threaten someone. You can't bring false
accusations against someone. You can't say "BOMB" on an airplane.
There are lots of places where speech is limited.
I'll say it again. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you
want... when you want.
-MH
Matt Harbon
>
> You can't have a bunch of smart, well educated, fraternity types tilting the
> course of an election through hugely influential media mudfests. It severely > undermines the opportunity of the 'dumb man' to get his message out.
>
Neither will be able to now. And that is a good thing.
>
> Why didn't Steve Forbes win then?
>
Um, maybe because he lost in the primary? And he didn't have the
backing of his own party? That PROBABLY had something to do with it,
I think.
>
> Your analysis is very wrong. The only election financing rule should be full
> disclosure. I should be able to spend *my* money on a campaign, to the very
> last of my pennies.
>
I don't know where in the constitution it says that. If you point to
the first amendment... I don't see where it says that in an election,
you have the right to spend as much money on a candidate as you want.
Unless it has been rewritten.
>
> It is not possible. *All* money is private. Besides, the SCOTUS disagrees
> with you.
>
*All* money is not private. Forget the originator. It is the SPENDER
that counts, here.
-MH
Matt Harbon
>
> The purpose of campaign finance reform to prevent anybody from
> calling the rotten crook John McCain a rotten crook. McCain can
> call you anything he wishes. On the other hand, you are not
> legally allowed to criticize him.
Really? Where does it say that in the CFR law? Can you point me to
the exact section in the law where it says that John McCain can call
you anything he wishes, but nobody else can call John McCain the same?
That must have been a late-addition amendment to the CFR bill.
-MH
Matt Harbon
> >
> > Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> > not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
> >
> > You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
> > tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
> > mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
> > get his message out.
>
> You will still have that. Who do you think will get an audience with the
> president first....you or the CEO of IBM? You or Jesse Jackson or Al
> Sharpton?
>
It is always the Enrons of the world who get the audience. That, too,
hopefully... will change. This bill is a good first step towards
that.
>
> Just where has that changed? Instead of Bill Rich Guy making a 100,000
> dollar contribution, he will have 50 Joe Sixpacks give 2000 dollar
> contributions to the same cause or candidate.
>
I'd much rather Joe Sixpack give his money than Bill Rich Guy. Its
much harder to get 50 Joe Sixpacks to give you two grand than one Bill
Rich Guy. Single individual contributions can't swing an entire
election.
>
> > How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> > dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> > "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> > the logic that is neeeded.
>
> That also only really changes in the last 60 days.
>
Which is where it counts the most.
>
> > Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
> > That is the goal.
>
> But they have not really done that.
>
They've _started_ to. Believe me, a powerful CFR bill will not be
passed immediately. Like Bush's stimulus plan... it is going to have
to be taken in small bites.
>
> Of course it does.....there may be ramifications to what you say, but you
> can still say it....no one stole your tongue.
>
My friend, that isn't free speech. Under the law, a person is
PROTECTED under the first amendment. If your free speech violates the
law, then you aren't protected. Anyone is "free" to shoot someone in
the head. That doesn't mean they have the right to kill under the
law.
You do realize that in the law... just because someone can physically
do something doesn't make it free speech. Right?
-MH
Pat Hines
>
> N9NWO wrote:
> >
> > bob wrote:
> >
> > > "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Senate Vote, 60-40, Caps Seven-Year Campaign Reform Debate
> > > >
> > > > By ROBERT PEAR
> > > >
> > > > "This bill won't fix every problem in our campaign finance
> > > system; this bill won't miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of
> > > congress overnight; it won't completely end the primacy of money in
> > > politics," said Senator Russell D.
> > > > Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who along with Senator John McCain,
> > > > the Arizona Republican, is the prime sponsor of the bill.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > "After so many years of effort and so many disappointments, the public
> > > has >reason to be gratified by what we are about to do," Mr. Feingold
> > > said, "and to >look with hope to what we can accomplish together with the
> > > monkey of soft >money finally lifted from our backs."
> > >
> > > Why, when he himself admits it won't accomplish what he wants?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > What their goal was, as expressed by McCain, was to stop the negative ads by
> > other groups that forced the general public to realize that these guys had
> > major problems. It was ruining their image.
> >
> > Now, since this bill is passed, how do we use to put the neo-liberals, the
> > socialists and other extreme left wing groups permanently out of business?
>
> right wing groups out of business.
>
> aren't you lucky, N9NWO?????
Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> > > > > Senate Vote, 60-40, Caps Seven-Year Campaign Reform Debate
> > > > >
> > > > > By ROBERT PEAR
> > > > >
> > > > > "This bill won't fix every problem in our campaign finance
> > > > system; this bill won't miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of
> > > > congress overnight; it won't completely end the primacy of money in
> > > > politics," said Senator Russell D.
> > > > > Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who along with Senator John McCain,
> > > > > the Arizona Republican, is the prime sponsor of the bill.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > "After so many years of effort and so many disappointments, the public
> > > > has >reason to be gratified by what we are about to do," Mr. Feingold
> > > > said, "and to >look with hope to what we can accomplish together with the
> > > > monkey of soft >money finally lifted from our backs."
> > > >
> > > > Why, when he himself admits it won't accomplish what he wants?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > What their goal was, as expressed by McCain, was to stop the negative ads by
> > > other groups that forced the general public to realize that these guys had
> > > major problems. It was ruining their image.
> > >
> > > Now, since this bill is passed, how do we use to put the neo-liberals, the
> > > socialists and other extreme left wing groups permanently out of business?
> >
> > You don't!!! Nor will it put the fascists and other extreme
> > right wing groups out of business.
> >
> > aren't you lucky, N9NWO?????
>
> who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> out of business.
Boy, are you ever wrong. All that law does is make Political Action
Committee's, newspapers, and talk show hosts much more powerful and influential.
Otherwise, it changes nothing.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
Le Mod Pol
you could not be more wrong, Its' roots came from Nietzche
and Schopenhauer both of whom preached survival of the
fittest. Does that sound socialist to you? I hope not.
The neo nazis claim that hitler and they were/are socialists
but that is all a crock of chicken guano. If you want to
know more about socio-political mechanisms past and present
- that was my field and I will help you if I can. Just post
a message with your questions to me in us.config and i will
reply by email.
No matter how you label them the Fascisti of Mussolini and
Generalissimo Franco are the model and while Mussolini came
to power as a socialist once he secured his position he
turned into a dictator. Franco, backed by Mussolini's
troops and Hitler's luftwaffe fought the socialist and
monarchists in the Spanish Civil War.
Now you are going to get more than you ever wanted to know
about fascism
Fascism (from Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia.)
Fascism was an authoritarian political movement that
developed in Italy and other European countries after 1919
as a reaction against the political and social changes
brought about by World War I and the spread of socialism and
communism. Its name was derived from the fasces, an ancient
Roman symbol of authority consisting of a bundle of rods and
an ax.
Italian fascism was founded in Milan on Mar. 23, 1919, by
Benito Mussolini, a former revolutionary socialist leader.
His followers, mostly war veterans, were organized along
paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as uniforms. The
early Fascist program was a mixture of left-and right-wing
ideas that emphasized intense nationalism, productivism,
antisocialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader.
Mussolini's oratorical skills, the postwar economic crisis,
a widespread lack of confidence in the traditional political
system, and a growing fear of socialism, all helped the
Fascist party to grow to 300,000 registered members by 1921.
In that year it elected 35 members to parliament. Mussolini
became prime minister in October 1922 following the "march
on Rome" and 3 years of bloody violence. In 1926 he seized
total power as dictator and ruled Italy until July 1943,
when he was deposed. A puppet Fascist regime with Mussolini
at its head nominally controlled northern Italy under the
Germans until Mussolini's execution by partisans in 1945
(see Italy, history of). A neo-Fascist party, the Italian
Social Movement, was founded after World War II, but its
influence was small.
The Philosophy of Fascism
Fascist ideology, largely the work of the neoidealist
philosopher Giovanni Gentile, emphasized the subordination
of the individual to a "totalitarian" state that was to
control all aspects of national life. Violence as a creative
force was an important aspect of the Fascist philosophy. A
special feature of Italian fascism was the attempt to
eliminate the class struggle from history through
nationalism and the corporate state. Mussolini organized the
economy and all "producers"--from peasants and factory
workers to intellectuals and industrialists--into 22
corporations as a means of improving productivity and
avoiding industrial disputes. Contrary to the regime's
propaganda claims, the totalitarian state functioned poorly.
Mussolini had to compromise with big business, the monarchy,
and the Roman Catholic church. The Italian economy
experienced no appreciable growth. The corporate state was
never fully implemented, and the expansionist, militaristic
nature of fascism contributed to imperialist adventures in
Ethiopia and the Balkans and ultimately to World War II.
The intellectual roots of fascism can be traced back to
voluntaristic philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer,
Friedrich Nietzsche, and Henri Bergson and to Social
Darwinism with its emphasis on the survival of the fittest.
Its immediate roots, however, were in certain irrational,
socialist, and nationalist tendencies of the turn of the
century that combined in a protest against the liberal
bourgeois ideas then holding sway in Western Europe.
Gabriele D'Annunzio, Georges Sorel, and Maurice Barres were
particularly influential.
European Fascism
Closely related to Italian fascism was German National
Socialism, or Nazism, under Adolf Hitler. It won wide
support among the unemployed, the impoverished middle class,
and industrialists who feared socialism and communism. In
Spain the Falange Espanola (Spanish Phalanx), inspired by
Mussolini's doctrines, was founded in 1933 by Jose Antonio
Primo de Rivera (1903-36). During the Spanish Civil War, the
Falange was reorganized as the Falange Espanola
Tradicionalista by Gen. Francisco Franco, who made it the
official party of his regime. Of less importance were the
Fascist movements in France and the British Union of
Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley. Fascist movements sprang
up in many other European countries during the 1930s,
including Romania (see Iron Guard), Belgium, Austria, and
the Netherlands. Fascist groups rose to power in many of the
countries under German occupation during World War II. In
France the Vichy Government of Marshal Philippe Petain was
strongly influenced by the Action Francaise, a movement that
shared many ideas with fascism. The collaborationist
Quisling government in occupied Norway also espoused a
fascistlike ideology. The defeat of Italy and Germany in the
war, however, spelled the end of fascism as an effective,
internationally appealing mass movement.
Reviewed by Philip Cannistraro
Bibliography: Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of
Totalitarianism, rev. ed. (1966); Bessel, R., Fascist Italy
and Nazi Germany (1996); Blinkhorn, Martin, ed., Fascists
and Conservatives (1990); Cassels, Alan, Fascism (1975); De
Felice, Renzo, Interpretations of Fascism, trans. by B.
Everett (1977); Fond, G., Fascist Europe (1993); Gregor,
James, Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of
Fascism (1979); Griffin, Roger, ed., The Nature of Fascism
(1995); Hoyt, E. P., Mussolini's Empire: The Rise and Fall
of the Fascist Vision (1994); Morgan, Philip, Italian
Fascism, 1919-1945 (1995); Payne, Stanley G., Fascism: A
Comparative Approach toward a Definition (1980) and Fascism,
1914-1945 (1996) ; Thurlow, Richard, C., Fascism in Britain (1987).
You might want to read Hannah Arendt. She was a terrific
scholar and a fine writer. She taught at Princeton, Chicago
U and the New School in NY from 1952 until her death in
1975. Books: The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), The
Human Condition (1958), Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), On
Revolution (1963), On Violence (1970), Crises of the
Republic (1972), and The Life of the Mind (1977)
Maha
I appreciate the effort, but the "fascists are left wing" types
provide clear proof of a genetic connection between modern homo
sapiens and neanderthals. Not the sharpest crayons in the box, as it
were. There's no point wasting your time trying to teach them
anything.
Got My Mind Right, Boss!
(And Saddam's elite army are "Republicans" too!)
Scott D. Erb
Pat Hines wrote:
>
> Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
Uh, NO. Fascism is a far right ideology, and if you
look at fascist movements they have allied themselves
with conservatives and nationalists, and get their
votes from the far right. This isn't even
controversial, check texts on political philosophy and
compare the philosophies of the left and right.
Scott D. Erb
Excellent job. I've given examples in the past to
counter the ignorant "fascists/nazis are left wing"
assertions by some, but you've done a really thorough
job providing documentation and sources. Impressive!
N9NWO
The only reason that fascism is defined as "right wing"
is that the socialists have been doing the defining.
What many so called "right wingers" are saying is that
they are not fascists but libertarians. They believe in
little to no government involvement in their lives. Fascism,
like socialism, is a government ran (top down) form of
society. These folks want no part of either socialism
nor fascism.
By their view, all forms of governmental control are left
wing. Total freedom, economic and social, in their view
is right wing.
In the end, what matters is who is doing the defining.
N9NWO
The only applies if you only see government control thus
within a very narrow definition, socialism and fascism are
left and right. What Pat is saying is that he rejects the
traditional academic political model (invented by socialists)
which only looks at government ran societies such as socialism,
fascism or communism. He is outside of that model as he
sees all forms of government control as left wing, to include
fascism. He is a libertarian who wants no (or at least extremely
little) government involvement in both his economic and
social life.
Mike Skutnik
> Mike Skutnik <msk...@big.spam.net.net> wrote in message news:<3C9A02B1...@big.spam.net.net>...
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > Why didn't Steve Forbes win then?
> >
>
> Um, maybe because he lost in the primary? And he didn't have the
> backing of his own party? That PROBABLY had something to do with it, I think.
You snipped the relevant part: (Quote:)
Because the richer guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
"get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
the logic that is needed. (Unquote)
So, your point was that the richer the candidate, the easier they get elected.
I see you agree that this is *not* the case.
> I don't know where in the constitution it says that. If you point to
> the first amendment... I don't see where it says that in an election,
> you have the right to spend as much money on a candidate as you want.
> Unless it has been rewritten.
According to most of the radio shows I listen to, the SCOTUS has actually rewritten the 1st to something like "Congress shall make no law ...restricting
campaign contributions..."
Silly me, they were not telling me the whole story. So, the real issue is what the SCOTUS really said. Here's a link to the relevant decision analysis:
http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley1.html
However, here's a link that looks like is fully supportive of the position that money should be taken out of politics. Lots of new ammo for your side.
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/programs_dem_cfr.html
My position is clear: I should be able to spend *my* money on a political candidate to the last penny.
It is my property to dispose of as I wish.
Regards,
Mike
John Lavoy
N9NWO wrote:
Hard to argue with that conclusion. But let me try. Pat is not defining, he is mixing
definitions. He is a libertarian. The opposite of libertarian is totalitarian. Left and
right do not enter into that particular spectrum. He has attached the label of right wing to
libertarian thinking and the label of left wing to totalitarian thinking, but the labels do
not fit. There are right wing totalitarians and left wing totalitarians.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Mike Skutnik <msk...@big.spam.net.net> wrote in message news:<3C9A02B1...@big.spam.net.net>...
>>
>> You can't have a bunch of smart, well educated, fraternity types tilting the
>> course of an election through hugely influential media mudfests. It severely > undermines the opportunity of the 'dumb man' to get his message out.
>>
>
>Neither will be able to now. And that is a good thing.
>
>>
>> Why didn't Steve Forbes win then?
>>
>
>Um, maybe because he lost in the primary? And he didn't have the
>backing of his own party? That PROBABLY had something to do with it,
>I think.
>
>>
>> Your analysis is very wrong. The only election financing rule should be full
>> disclosure. I should be able to spend *my* money on a campaign, to the very
>> last of my pennies.
>>
>
>I don't know where in the constitution it says that. If you point to
>the first amendment... I don't see where it says that in an election,
>you have the right to spend as much money on a candidate as you want.
>Unless it has been rewritten.
The constitution does not grant rights to the citizens...it limits
what the federal goverment can do. CFR limits my right to speak.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 07:54:53 -0500, bob <alli...@pobox.upenn.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
>>
>>> Senate Vote, 60-40, Caps Seven-Year Campaign Reform Debate
>>>
>>> By ROBERT PEAR
>>>
>>> "This bill won't fix every problem in our campaign finance
>>> system;
>>> this bill won't miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of congress
>>> overnight; it won't completely
>>> end the primacy of money in politics," said Senator Russell D.
>>> Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who along with Senator John McCain,
>>> the Arizona Republican, is
>>> the prime sponsor of the bill.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> "After so many years of effort and so many disappointments, the public
>>> has reason to be gratified by what we are about to do," Mr. Feingold
>>> said, "and to look with hope to what we can accomplish together with
>>> the monkey of soft money finally lifted from our backs."
>>
>>Why, when he himself admits it won't accomplish what he wants?
>
>He calls it a first step. What he and I both want is to remove
>private funding from campaigns altogether.
Nothing like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop is there?
JSL
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>The only reason that fascism is defined as "right wing"
>is that the socialists have been doing the defining.
Yep. Up until Hitler invaded the USSR, he was a National Socialist,
and Stalin considered him a fellow traveller. After the invasion,
he was a Fascist.
Of course, the Fascists had always been socialists, but the Communist
Parties of the world made a planned and considered effort to ignore
that fact, because it was believed that the US would be less willing
to provide wartime aid to the USSR if the US public had that brought to
its intention.
Of course, policy makers in the US and the UK went along with the lie,
because it served their wartime goals.
Fascist == right wing was a very carefully executed bit of political
propaganda.
But it was always founded in a lie.
--
I could climb the very highest Himalayas,
be among the greatest ever tennis players,
Win at chess, marry a princess,
or study hard and be an eminent professor.
I could be a millionaire, play the clarinet, travel everywhere,
learn to cook, catch a crook, win a war and write a book about it.
I could paint a Mona Lisa, I could be another Caesar,
compose an oratorio that was sublime,
The door's not shut on my genius, but
I just don't have the time.
-- Michael Flanders and Donald Swann
Jeffrey Davis
"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
>
> Fascist == right wing was a very carefully executed bit of political
> propaganda.
>
> But it was always founded in a lie.
Fascism is first and foremost militant nationalism.
Defining it by economics is cherry-picking.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> By this time, my lungs
were aching for air!
Zepp the Weasel
And it's your contention that the Republicans oppose it so mightily
just because they think it's unsporting, and they just couldn't take
the unfair advantage it gives them, right?
You guys will say anything when you're cornered.
Well, cheer up: Moral master Kenny "Analingis" Starr is leading the
fight for you.
>
> Pat Hines
>
> Pat Hines
Ted Clayton
>
> > >
> > > Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
> >
> > Uh, NO. Fascism is a far right ideology, and if you
> > look at fascist movements they have allied themselves
> > with conservatives and nationalists, and get their
> > votes from the far right. This isn't even
> > controversial, check texts on political philosophy and
> > compare the philosophies of the left and right.
>
> The only applies if you only see government control thus
> within a very narrow definition, socialism and fascism are
> left and right. What Pat is saying is that he rejects the
> traditional academic political model (invented by socialists)
The terms "left" and "right" came out of the seating arrangements in the
French revolutionary government, and were not invented by socialists.
> which only looks at government ran societies such as socialism,
> fascism or communism. He is outside of that model as he
> sees all forms of government control as left wing, to include
> fascism.
If he were really outside of that model, he wouldn't use the terms "left
wing" and "right wing" at all. It would make just as much sense to say
that all forms of government control are right wing, to include
communism.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to set up a continuum along the
lines libertarians do, from individualism to collectivism, but if you
want to do that you should stay away from the terms "left" and "right,"
which are already in use to mean other things.
> He is a libertarian who wants no (or at least extremely
> little) government involvement in both his economic and
> social life.
>
> In the end, what matters is who is doing the defining.
Well, and who agrees with those definitions. People can define things
however they want, but if no one shares your definitions they're not
going to be very useful.
Ted
N9NWO
> > propaganda.
> >
> > But it was always founded in a lie.
>
> Fascism is first and foremost militant nationalism.
> Defining it by economics is cherry-picking.
Fascism had an element that was nationalistic.
But then that is something we are now seeing
among Moslems and in the People's Republic
of China, neither of which of could be said to
be "fascist" in the traditional sense.
But in the economic sense, fascism was a socialistic
system.
Again it is who is doing the defining.
And modern "right wing" is more about being
free of all forms of government control, both
economic and social. If there is an "ism", it is
not fascism but rather libertarianism that now defines
the modern right wing.
Again that is why they see fascism and socialism
as being similar. Both are forms societies ran from
the top down by government and a few elite individuals.
N9NWO
> > >
> > > Uh, NO. Fascism is a far right ideology, and if you
> > > look at fascist movements they have allied themselves
> > > with conservatives and nationalists, and get their
> > > votes from the far right. This isn't even
> > > controversial, check texts on political philosophy and
> > > compare the philosophies of the left and right.
> >
> > The only applies if you only see government control thus
> > within a very narrow definition, socialism and fascism are
> > left and right. What Pat is saying is that he rejects the
> > traditional academic political model (invented by socialists)
>
> The terms "left" and "right" came out of the seating arrangements in the
> French revolutionary government, and were not invented by socialists.
>
But applied by the socialists in the universities starting
after WW2.
>
> > which only looks at government ran societies such as socialism,
> > fascism or communism. He is outside of that model as he
> > sees all forms of government control as left wing, to include
> > fascism.
>
> If he were really outside of that model, he wouldn't use the terms "left
> wing" and "right wing" at all. It would make just as much sense to say
> that all forms of government control are right wing, to include
> communism.
>
> I'm not saying that it isn't possible to set up a continuum along the
> lines libertarians do, from individualism to collectivism, but if you
> want to do that you should stay away from the terms "left" and "right,"
> which are already in use to mean other things.
>
As we are still thinking in terms of two parties (bi-polar),
most American think right or left wing. Americans are
not yet ready to think "outside the box" of the two party
system.
>
> > He is a libertarian who wants no (or at least extremely
> > little) government involvement in both his economic and
> > social life.
> >
> > In the end, what matters is who is doing the defining.
>
> Well, and who agrees with those definitions. People can define things
> however they want, but if no one shares your definitions they're not
> going to be very useful.
That is the problem. To communicate, all parties
have to share a common "language" of terms that
they all agree on. For too long the academic "left"
has been redefining terms in order to control the
debate. Now the right is playing the same game.
David Lentz
Aside to Le Mol Pol: You call be corrupt and the feds will not
come to arrest you. Call John McCain corrupt in a ad within
sixty days of a federal election and the feds will come to get
you. See the difference?
McCain has been boosting how what he calls attack ads are banned
by his bill. McCain guts the First Amendment and wants to
treated as if he were a some kind of hero.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
RD Thompson
news:a677bf4.02032...@posting.google.com:
> RD Thompson <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns91D8A3B30...@216.166.71.239>...
>> >
>> > Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This
>> > is not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
>> >
>> > You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest
>> > groups tilting the course of an election through hugely influential
>> > media mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the
>> > "poor man" to get his message out.
>>
>> You will still have that. Who do you think will get an audience with
>> the president first....you or the CEO of IBM? You or Jesse Jackson
>> or Al Sharpton?
>>
>
> It is always the Enrons of the world who get the audience. That, too,
> hopefully... will change. This bill is a good first step towards
> that.
The problem is that it won't change. They will still have the first ear.
>>
>> Just where has that changed? Instead of Bill Rich Guy making a
>> 100,000 dollar contribution, he will have 50 Joe Sixpacks give 2000
>> dollar contributions to the same cause or candidate.
>>
>
> I'd much rather Joe Sixpack give his money than Bill Rich Guy. Its
> much harder to get 50 Joe Sixpacks to give you two grand than one Bill
> Rich Guy. Single individual contributions can't swing an entire
> election.
You failed to read what I wrote. I did not say 50 Joe Sixpacks may give
2000 dollar contributions, I said that the same rich guy will give 100,000
dollar contribution through 50 Joe Sixpacks.
>>
>> > How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has
>> > 100,000 dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more
>> > able to "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious.
>> > That's all the logic that is neeeded.
>>
>> That also only really changes in the last 60 days.
>>
>
> Which is where it counts the most.
Which is the incumbent's finest wetdream. This bill hampers newcomers even
more than they were hampered before. It makes it a lot more difficult to
discuss the failings of an incumbent.
>>
>> > Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
>> > That is the goal.
>>
>> But they have not really done that.
>>
>
> They've _started_ to. Believe me, a powerful CFR bill will not be
> passed immediately. Like Bush's stimulus plan... it is going to have
> to be taken in small bites.
The only thing this will do is to drive those contributions into a
different pattern. Even your hero McCain says it is only a short matter f
time before the wealthy contributors have figured out a way around CFR.
>>
>> Of course it does.....there may be ramifications to what you say, but
>> you can still say it....no one stole your tongue.
>>
>
> My friend, that isn't free speech. Under the law, a person is
> PROTECTED under the first amendment. If your free speech violates the
> law, then you aren't protected. Anyone is "free" to shoot someone in
> the head. That doesn't mean they have the right to kill under the
> law.
Free speech (or any speech) is something that is punished AFTER the
incident occurs. CFR is restriction BEFORE the incident occurs. Can you
tell the difference?
--
Sleep well tonight.........
RD (The Sandman)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rdsandman
Whether a gun is used to save a life or to illegally
take one, the only difference is whose hands are
in control of that gun. The gun itself is neutral.
RD Thompson
> I notice that you were not mentioning the ultra conservative
> repugs, fascists, militias, and the ultra right 'secret'
> associations to which half or more of the present
> administration belong.
And, in some ways, a welcome relief from having HCI in the White House.
> Bribing legislators is not "free speech" but CFR will
> certainly limit the clout to outfits like NRA, enron.
> microsoft, the Tobacco lobby, Trial lawyers, AMA, labor
> unions, the insurance lobby etc.
If you have proof of legislators being bribed you should bring it forth.
Otherwise we will consider that you are simply full of shit.
There is a big difference between bribery and influence....particularly if
you believe that a blowjob is not sex.
RD Thompson
>> Sure, if we are allowed to call a crooked politician a crooked
>> politician. This law makes it illegal when it really counts.
>>
>> Dr P
>
> No but you have to have the proof out front first
>
Why? You certainly don't when you make claims of current legislators being
bribed by big business. Are you simply using that term as a somewhat loose
figure of speech?
RD Thompson
>> Your analysis is very wrong. The only election financing rule should
>> be full disclosure. I should be able to spend *my* money on a
>> campaign, to the very last of my pennies.
>>
>
> I don't know where in the constitution it says that. If you point to
> the first amendment... I don't see where it says that in an election,
> you have the right to spend as much money on a candidate as you want.
> Unless it has been rewritten.
>
Try the Ninth amendment, slick. The Constitution is a limit on government
not the citizens.
Silverback
wrong again patty, fascists are always from the far right and have
always been so. fascism==-corporate rule
and now for some fun facts about how the right wing republiCONS
supported fascism in the past
With the pro-business agenda of the Republican Party and the fascist
views of the leaders of corporate America, the Republican Party soon
became laden with
fascists.
Even before Hitler and the Nazis seized power in Germany, the Nazis
were already actively involving themselves in American politics and
elections. Shockingly the
Nazis did not have to infiltrate the party; many were employed at high
levels within the national or state Republican Party organizations.
In October 1928, Edmond Furholzer, a pro-Nazi publisher from
Germantown presented the New York State Republican Committee with a
solicitation that for
twenty thousand dollars for which he would deliver the German vote to
Hoover. With Hoover’s chances looking good and late in the election
campaign the
committee rejected Furholzer’s plan.
Furholzer was hardly an obscure Nazi and was a leading figure in the
hard right of Yorkville. The Republican State Committee adopted many
of the ideas Furholzer
proposed in 1928 and four years later in 1932 when Hoover’s chances
were dismal; Furholzer’s help was gladly accepted. In fact during the
1932 campaign,
Furholzer worked endlessly for the Republican National Committee. He
campaigned tirelessly for Hoover in New York State equating Roosevelt
as the new
Wilson, the man that had destroyed Germany.92 In 1933, Furholzer
returned to Germany.
The Nazis had only been in power for less than a year by 1934, but
already the Nazis were active in placing their agents or pro-Nazis
into positions of power. On
February 22, 1934, the Republican Party merged their Senatorial and
Congressional Campaign Committees into a single organization
independent of the Republican
National Committee.
Senator Daniel Hastings of Delaware and Representative Chester Bolton
announced the merger. Several weeks before the merger the two
committees hired Sidney
Brooks, who for years had headed the research bureau at International
Telephone and Telegraph (ITT). ITT was one of many American
corporations that went to
extraordinary means to continue to trade with the Nazis once war broke
out.
Shortly after Brooks took charge, he made a frantic visit to New York
on March 4 calling on room 830 at the Hotel Edison. The room was
rented to a Mr. William
Goodales of Los Angles. Goodales was in fact William Dudley Pelly. The
meeting concluded after agreement was reached to merge the Order of 76
with the Silver
Shirts. Later Brooks would stop at 17 Battery Place, the address of
the German Consulate General.
Brooks was a member of the Order of 76, a pro-fascist group. A group
which, required on the application form the fingerprints of the member
and certain details of
their life. Brooks’ application revealed that he was the son of the
Nazi agent Colonel Edwin Emerson and that he chose to use his mother’s
maiden name to conceal
the connection to his father.80 Emerson was a major financial backer
of Furholzer and his paper.
Thus as early as 1934 The Republican Party was collaborating with
Nazis and pro-fascist groups at a high level. This would not be the
last example of collaboration
between the high level Republicans and the Nazis as the following
headlines make clear.
On October 22, 1936, the New York Post broke the following story.
Nazi Publicist On G.O.P
Payroll
To win votes for Landon and Bleakley, the Republican State
Committee is employing on its payroll a staff of propagandists
identified with local Nazi
organizations, the Post learned today.78
On October 30, 1936, the New York World-Telegram revealed additional
details.
U.S. Nazi Attack on Jews
Is Laid to Republicans
Anti-Semitic Radio Speeches by
Griebl, Others sponsored by G.O.P
Fritz Kuhn Among Speakers in
Regular Broadcasts over WWRL
The Republican Party had been sponsoring radio broadcasts by
American Nazis to win German votes, it was disclosed today. One of the
recent
speakers was Dr. Ignatz T. Griebl a national Nazi leader and
pronounced anti-Semitic…79
The hiring of Brooks in 1934 to head up the joint election campaign
committee and the headlines from 1936 sets up a pattern of
collaboration between elements of
the Republican Party and the Nazis.
for more fun facts about republiCONS being in bed with the Nazis
including how Herbert Hoover collaborated with top Nazis in Berlin
during the 1940 election to bring about the defeat of FDR click the
link below.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
=====================================================
GDY Weasel
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
The Nazi Hydra in America an online book of the
fascist influence in America.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
===================================================
Silverback
wrong again little liar fascism ===corporate rule and is an ideology
from the far right. Thats why the right wing republiCONs adopted and
supported fascism here in the 1930s.
Now fer some facts as to who supported fascism in America.
Is Laid to Republicans
for more fun facts about republiCONs in bed with the Nazis including
how Herbert Hoover collaborated with top Nazis in Berlin during the
1940 election to bring about the defeat of FDR click the link below.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
>
>What many so called "right wingers" are saying is that
>they are not fascists but libertarians. They believe in
>little to no government involvement in their lives. Fascism,
>like socialism, is a government ran (top down) form of
>society. These folks want no part of either socialism
>nor fascism.
>
>By their view, all forms of governmental control are left
>wing. Total freedom, economic and social, in their view
>is right wing.
>
>In the end, what matters is who is doing the defining.
>
>
>
=====================================================
Peter H. Proctor
>From: ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp the Weasel)
>Subject: Re: #Senate passes CFR, 60-40
>Date: 22 Mar 2002 06:50:16 -0800
>And it's your contention that the Republicans oppose it so mightily
>just because they think it's unsporting, and they just couldn't take
>the unfair advantage it gives them, right?
Crocodile tears from the Republicans, along with covert smiles. Be
careful what you wish for. Who it will help is large organizations with
lots of followers with money to be steered directly to candidates, rather
than to PACs. Such as the NRA. Note that the prohibition about saying
nasty things about politicians is on broadcast media, which the NRA hardly
uses at all anyway.
Then, when the 'soft money " parts get ruled unconsitutional ( the
same thing already was in Buckley v. Vallejo ) what is left over is an
increase in hard money donations, which definitely helps the Republicans.
The people who passed this thing have admitted as much.
Dr p
Peter H. Proctor
>Subject: Re: #Senate passes CFR, 60-40
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:57:48 GMT
>mhar...@hotmail.com (Matt Harbon) wrote in
>news:a677bf4.02032...@posting.google.com:
>> I don't know where in the constitution it says that. If you point to
>> the first amendment... I don't see where it says that in an election,
>> you have the right to spend as much money on a candidate as you want.
>> Unless it has been rewritten.
>Try the Ninth amendment, slick. The Constitution is a limit on government
>not the citizens.
The first amendment says "congress shall make no law" restricting
freedom of speech. Congress just did exactly this and for political speech,
the most protected kind... If you can't spend your own money to make a
political statement, then the first amendment means nothing. Luckily,
this is all an exercise in politicla posturing and the Supremes will thro this
turkey out, as they did the same thing in Buckley v. Valleho.
Dr P
Scott D. Erb
N9NWO wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
> >
> > Uh, NO. Fascism is a far right ideology, and if you
> > look at fascist movements they have allied themselves
> > with conservatives and nationalists, and get their
> > votes from the far right. This isn't even
> > controversial, check texts on political philosophy and
> > compare the philosophies of the left and right.
>
> The only applies if you only see government control thus
> within a very narrow definition, socialism and fascism are
> left and right. What Pat is saying is that he rejects the
> traditional academic political model (invented by socialists)
Uh, no, the traditional academic political model was
adopted by American scholars who were and are
anti-socialist and very focused on simply looking at
the ideology and correctly categorizing. The only
people who try to say fascism was leftwing are those
who do so for propaganda purposes, either to try to
claim "only the left is bad," or to promote some kind
of weird single continuum between oppressive
governments and no government.
> which only looks at government ran societies such as socialism,
> fascism or communism. He is outside of that model as he
> sees all forms of government control as left wing, to include
> fascism. He is a libertarian who wants no (or at least extremely
> little) government involvement in both his economic and
> social life.
Ah, so it is propaganda for the second purpose. That's
easy to dismiss. Conservatism and right wing thought
is traditionally statist and supports authoritarian
anti-individualist approaches to governance. The
right-left continuum is not one of "liberty" vs.
"socialism." There is no single continuum to define
politics, that kind of simplistic thinking has been
rejected long ago.
no one of consequence
Maha <gillih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
]Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C9AE14E...@espmail.com>...
]
]I appreciate the effort, but the "fascists are left wing" types
]provide clear proof of a genetic connection between modern homo
]sapiens and neanderthals. Not the sharpest crayons in the box, as it
]were. There's no point wasting your time trying to teach them
]anything.
How quaint... are you going to compare them to rats next, Maha?
--
|Patrick Chester wol...@io.com |
|"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?" |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.|
classicliberal2
Dege) wrote:
>> The only reason that fascism is
>> defined as "right wing" is that the
>> socialists have been doing the
>> defining.
>
> Yep. Up until Hitler invaded the
> USSR, he was a National Socialist,
> and Stalin considered him a fellow
> traveller. After the invasion, he was
> a Fascist.
___
You might save yourself a good deal
of embarassment in the future by sticking
to subjects of which you actually know
something. Fascists are anti-socialist,
anti-liberal reactionaries. Hitler was a
fascist from the beginning, Mussolini's
already-established regime providing the
model for his own. Stalin had been
fighting his "fellow traveller" Hitler in
Spain five years before Germany invaded
the USSR.
<mindless garbage snipped>
Bert Hyman
news:652DB336EC526309.B5BFA748...@lp.airnews.net
:
> Fascists are anti-socialist,
> anti-liberal reactionaries.
Fascism, Communism and socialism are all anti-liberal, if you use the
classical meaning of the word.
The fascists were anti-socialist because the socialists (and the
Communists) represented a competing brand of totalitarianism.
Fascist "corporatism", where the state controls all industry while
retaining nominal private ownership, is indistinguishable from either
socialism or Communism in practice.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Matt Harbon
>
> You snipped the relevant part: (Quote:)
>
> Because the richer guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
>
> How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> the logic that is needed. (Unquote)
>
> So, your point was that the richer the candidate, the easier they get elected.
>
> I see you agree that this is *not* the case.
>
No. I don't agree. You can think what you want concerning Forbes.
If you want a good example.... use Ross Perot. A good example about
how a very well-financed guy can literally swing an entire election...
with a wave of his checkbook.
>
> It is my property to dispose of as I wish.
>
You can be deluded to think that. And maybe in a purist Libertarian
world, it would be that way... but it isn't. You cannot dispose of
your property in any way you see fit. You may think you can, but the
law isn't on your side. Neither is the constitution.
We have the constitution to limit what the government can do. We have
laws to restrict what the people can do. We have amendments to the
constitution to clarify and fill in the gaps the constitution doesn't.
That is what this country has been about... since the beginning.
Deal with it.
-MH
Matt Harbon
>
> The constitution does not grant rights to the citizens...it limits
> what the federal goverment can do. CFR limits my right to speak.
>
Do slander laws restrict your right to speak? What about verbal
assault or threats? How about saying "BOMB" in an airport or on a
train? What about lying under oath? How about saying you are a
homosexual in the military? I could go on and on.
Aren't these examples where your freedom to speak as are justifiably
limited by government?
I thought so. Next.
-MH
N9NWO
Since many of the corporate types are democrats
with strong socialist backgrounds (look at the Ford
foundation which funds much of the left), corporations
are not the problem.
And that is the best you have. That is history and not now. Modern neo-liberals
are in the McGovern wing of the democrats and are so much into pacifism that they would have
surrendered to Hitler. Now it looks like the Truman wing, under Sen. Kerry, is going to take
control of the democrats and move them back to being pro war and pro mandatory military
service. My guess is that the McGovernites will have to move to the Green party.
And the right wing of today is not the republicans of Hoover. They are far more into being
LIBERTARIANs which is to say that they do not want any form of government control over their
lives, social or economic. So to them there is no difference between Hitler and Stalin,
between socialism and fascism as both systems are top down, government ran. Plain and simple,
they want government to be totally and completely restricted.
N9NWO
> > within a very narrow definition, socialism and fascism are
> > left and right. What Pat is saying is that he rejects the
> > traditional academic political model (invented by socialists)
>
> Uh, no, the traditional academic political model was
> adopted by American scholars who were and are
> anti-socialist and very focused on simply looking at
> the ideology and correctly categorizing. The only
> people who try to say fascism was leftwing are those
> who do so for propaganda purposes, either to try to
> claim "only the left is bad," or to promote some kind
> of weird single continuum between oppressive
> governments and no government.
>
For libertarians, the ultimate goal is no government.
That is how they see the constitution.
> > which only looks at government ran societies such as socialism,
> > fascism or communism. He is outside of that model as he
> > sees all forms of government control as left wing, to include
> > fascism. He is a libertarian who wants no (or at least extremely
> > little) government involvement in both his economic and
> > social life.
>
> Ah, so it is propaganda for the second purpose. That's
> easy to dismiss. Conservatism and right wing thought
> is traditionally statist and supports authoritarian
> anti-individualist approaches to governance. The
> right-left continuum is not one of "liberty" vs.
> "socialism." There is no single continuum to define
> politics, that kind of simplistic thinking has been
> rejected long ago.
>
It is not for propaganda. These guys truly believe this.
And they are anything but statist. They hate any form
of government as being destructive to the individual.
They see conservatives as being little better than the far
left wing socialists types. In many ways you are a libertarian,
except that you want government around to clean up your
messes and to rescue if you fuck up.
Come over to Talk.Politics.Guns and argue regularly. These
guys are extremely individualistic.
N9NWO
> >
> > Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
> >
> >Pat Hines
>
> wrong again patty, fascists are always from the far right and have
> always been so. fascism==-corporate rule
>
> and now for some fun facts about how the right wing republiCONS
> supported fascism in the past
Big mistake. Pat hates republicans as much as he hates
democrats. He sees both as statist, as socialistic. He
wants the total absence of all forms of government. OR
at least government in a very minimal form.
Matt Harbon
>
> Try the Ninth amendment, slick. The Constitution is a limit on government
> not the citizens.
>
The government is by the people, for the people. And therefore, the
Constitution is a limit ON the people.
And I've got news for you, slick. The ninth amendment isn't a "get
out of jail free card" for rights. If you think it is, think again.
And read a few SCOTUS opinions regarding what it means.
The ninth amendment says that the Constitution cannot be limited to
solely the rights expressed within it. Because obviously, listing all
of those out would be impossible.
But that doesn't mean that you can make ANY issue a "RIGHT" and then
declare it is protected under the ninth amendment. It doesn't work
that way. Next.
-MH
Matt Harbon
-MH
David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote in message news:<3C9B50F3...@signfile.net>...
Bert Hyman
> For libertarians, the ultimate goal is no government.
You confuse libertarians with anarchists, somehow.
> That is how they see the constitution.
What is how they see the Constitution?
Matt Harbon
>
> You failed to read what I wrote. I did not say 50 Joe Sixpacks may give
> 2000 dollar contributions, I said that the same rich guy will give 100,000
> dollar contribution through 50 Joe Sixpacks.
>
WRONG. It doesn't work that way, see. Let's say that Joe Rich guy
decides to bestow gifts of 2,000 dollars apiece on 50 people. If a
quid pro quo is found (which would be easy in this case) everyone
involved could be prosecuted under the law. Not only that, but Joe
Six Pack has to pay tax on the gift given to him by rich guy.
The scenario for what you are talking about becomes extremely
difficult to pull off. Once it was found out that it was a conspiracy
to violate the CFR, it would be over. And let me tell you... most
candidates wouldn't be willing to risk their candicacy over such shady
dealings. It looks really bad.
You are talking about a situation where I don't actually do a crime,
but I pay a bunch of people to do it for me. That doesn't change the
fact that it is a crime and punishible under the law.
Finding the impropriety wouldn't be difficult. As it is... campaign
contributions are already looked at with a fine-toothed comb. The
second something shady is found, it all comes out.
-MH
Keith A Flick
news:3C9A4400...@verizon.net...
>
>
> Keith A Flick wrote:
>
> > How does a "poor man" get his message out? He joins a
> > special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
> > are the very people who will be muzzled. Do you really think
> > that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> > their message out after this bill is signed? Only the "poor
> > people" will be stopped.
>
> Maybe, but an awful lot of rich people are opposed to this
> law. In politics, the first rule is you judge a man (or a
> law) by his (or its) enemies.
>
Didn't a majority of the millionaires in the senate
vote for it?
Scott D. Erb
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> classic...@operamail.com (classicliberal2) wrote in
> news:652DB336EC526309.B5BFA748...@lp.airnews.net
> :
>
> > Fascists are anti-socialist,
> > anti-liberal reactionaries.
>
> Fascism, Communism and socialism are all anti-liberal, if you use the
> classical meaning of the word.
That may go too far. There are mixes of socialism and
liberalism in modern social democracy. The result is
neither socialist nor liberal, but it would be too much
to call it "anti-liberal" or "anti-socialist." Reality
rarely fits into theoretically defined "isms" in any
event.
> The fascists were anti-socialist because the socialists (and the
> Communists) represented a competing brand of totalitarianism.
Not really -- the differences were real and
ideological, they were all fighting for power, but it
wasn't simply that one was a 'different
totalitarianism.' The reasons for the fascist
opposition to liberalism was similar to its opposition
to communism, they wanted power and saw each as an
opposing perspective.
> Fascist "corporatism", where the state controls all industry while
> retaining nominal private ownership, is indistinguishable from either
> socialism or Communism in practice.
No, that is WAY off base. Corporatism fascist style
gives considerable power to the private owners, who
collude with government, but are not controlled by it.
It is not a centrally planned economy (though in war
all economies lean that way), nor is it based on
creating equal outcomes and the like. The differences
are immense. Not that either is good, but they are
very different.
Keith A Flick
> Keith A Flick wrote:
> >
> > "Matt Harbon" <mhar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a677bf4.02032...@posting.google.com...> > news:<3C99B4E5...@big.spam.net.net>...
> > > > N9NWO wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> > > > > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> > > > > out of business.
> > > >
within
> > the 60 day
> > > > window of an election is defined as an 'extremist.'
> > > >
> > > > Anyone.
> > > >
> > > > Nice country we have, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > MIke
> > >
> > > Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> > > not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
> > >
> > > You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
> > > tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
> > > mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
> > > get his message out.
> >
> > special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
> > are the very people who will be muzzled.
>
How, I won't be able to buy a radio add (~$100) within 60
days of the election to point out that one of the candidates
is a moron? That's one of my favorite ideas when all you
have to do is replay their own words.
> > Do you really think
> > that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> > their message out after this bill is signed?
>
> They will restricted to press releases and campaign
> contributions. They will not be able to hide behind "associations"
They will be able to give the a party up to
$500,000,000.00 for a "get out the vote"
drive and still be legal. Do you think that
will limit them too much?
> > Only the "poor people" will be stopped.
>
> There is a lot that the "poor people" can do to help their
> favorite candidate's campaign without spending money and
> grass roots campaigning has won a lot of elections..... far
> more than the big media hypes.
> > >
> > > P.S. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the
> > > hell you want whenever the hell you want.
> >
> > Actually, as far as public discourse is concerned, it does.
>
> Read Alan Dershowitz new book "Shouting Fire". Prof
> Dershowitz is the leading authority on "free speech" and his
> book is just about that. The title refers to "shouting fire
> in a crowded theater" for which you could go to prison for life.
>
Two problems with that.
1. Shouting in a theater is not public discourse.
2. If there is a fire it is indeed acceptable, i.e. truth
is a complete defense.
Keith A Flick
news:<u9kh18o...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > How does a "poor man" get his message out? He joins a
> > special interest group that feels the way he does. Those
> > that the multi-millionaires or billionaires will be unable to get
> > people" will be stopped.
> >
>
> Wrong. The poor won't be stopped. Because they never had an equal
> voice to begin with. Let me tell you... very few poor people have any
> voice at all.
Who said anything about an "equal voice" ?
Very few pairs of people have an "equal voice".
Stupid people, ugly people, fat people, poor people,
and annoying people have a lesser voice.
Beautiful people, popular people, famous people,
rich people, smart people and personable people
have a greater voice.
There is no way to change it so that it is otherwise.
> >
> > > I've said the same kind of thing about the justice system. Private
> > > money and the justice system should not mix. Likewise private money
> > > and elections should not mix. Why? Its obvious. Because the richer
> > > guy is always going to have a better chance. He has an edge.
> > >
> > > How do I know that. Its easy. Scenario... Candidate #1 has 100,000
> > > dollars. Candidate #2 has 1,000,000 dollars. Who is more able to
> > > "get the word out" to more people? The answer is obvious. That's all
> > > the logic that is neeeded.
> >
> > This law doesn't change that at all. If you have money you can spend
> > all you want on the election, if you don't have any you aren't allowed
> > to raise as much as you can to get the word out. This law discriminates
> > against the "poor candidate".
> >
>
> It DOES NOT. The law is a step towards evening out the playing field.
> The more money is taken out of elections... the better.
>
> >
> > Actually, as far as public discourse is concerned, it does.
> >
>
> No. It doesn't. You can't cry wolf in a theater. You can't harass
> someone verbally. You can't threaten someone. You can't bring false
> accusations against someone. You can't say "BOMB" on an airplane.
> There are lots of places where speech is limited.
None of those are public discourse.
> I'll say it again. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you
> want... when you want.
And I'll say it again, as far as public discourse is concerned, it does.
Do you understand it this time?
> -MH
Jeffrey Davis
Maha
> Le Mod Pol wrote:
> >
> > N9NWO wrote:
> > >
> > > bob wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Senate Vote, 60-40, Caps Seven-Year Campaign Reform Debate
> > > > >
> > > > > By ROBERT PEAR
> > > > >
> > > > > "This bill won't fix every problem in our campaign finance
> > > > system; this bill won't miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of
> > > > congress overnight; it won't completely end the primacy of money in
> > > > politics," said Senator Russell D.
> > > > > Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who along with Senator John McCain,
> > > > > the Arizona Republican, is the prime sponsor of the bill.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "After so many years of effort and so many disappointments, the public
> > > > has >reason to be gratified by what we are about to do," Mr. Feingold
> > > > said, "and to >look with hope to what we can accomplish together with the
> > > > monkey of soft >money finally lifted from our backs."
> > > >
> > > > Why, when he himself admits it won't accomplish what he wants?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > What their goal was, as expressed by McCain, was to stop the negative ads by
> > > other groups that forced the general public to realize that these guys had
> > > major problems. It was ruining their image.
> > >
> > > Now, since this bill is passed, how do we use to put the neo-liberals, the
> > > socialists and other extreme left wing groups permanently out of business?
> >
> > You don't!!! Nor will it put the fascists and other extreme
> > right wing groups out of business.
> >
> > aren't you lucky, N9NWO?????
>
>
Fascists and socialists do not play well together, son. Fascism
actually began in the early 20th century as a counter-movement AGAINST
socialism. Learn some history.
Maha
> > >
> > > Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
> >
> > look at fascist movements they have allied themselves
> > with conservatives and nationalists, and get their
> > votes from the far right. This isn't even
> > controversial, check texts on political philosophy and
> > compare the philosophies of the left and right.
>
> within a very narrow definition, socialism and fascism are
> left and right. What Pat is saying is that he rejects the
> traditional academic political model (invented by socialists)
> fascism or communism.
Oh, bullshit. What Pat is saying is that he doesn't know fascism from chickens.
> He is outside of that model as he
> sees all forms of government control as left wing, to include
> fascism.
So, according to you, a monarchy is a form of socialism?
> He is a libertarian who wants no (or at least extremely
> little) government involvement in both his economic and
> social life.
>
> In the end, what matters is who is doing the defining.
How about the dictionary? Or is Merriam-Webster a socialist plot, also?
Tubesteak Morris
> Pat Hines wrote:
> >
> > Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and very socialist.
>
> Uh, NO. Fascism is a far right ideology, and if you
> look at fascist movements they have allied themselves
> with conservatives and nationalists, and get their
> votes from the far right. This isn't even
> controversial, check texts on political philosophy and
> compare the philosophies of the left and right.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from
Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality --
J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
Note the characteristics of "centralized autocratic government" and
"severe economic and social regimentation" that make up fascism. These
are characteristics shared with modern left wing political
philosophies such as the environmental movement and socialism. That is
why people describe the left as being fascist.
Scott Erb
"Tubesteak Morris" <tubeste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c02a4e9.02032...@posting.google.com...
Besides the fact that political philosophy can't be found in a dictionary
(I'd recommend you check out Leon Baradat's "Political Ideologies" or the
book by Thobaben and Funderburk by the same name, they do a good
comparison), you show a misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
Centralized autocratic government can support a variety of ideologies.
Clearly monarchies are not leftist, traditional conservative thought
supported a strong central monarch, supporting national and traditional
values. Depending on the type of system, you can have centralized
autocratic governments for the left, the right, or a religion (such as a
theocracy -- arguably the Vatican is a centralized dictatorship, albeit a
benevolent one). So the issue is not whether or not the government is
centralized or autocratic when looking at the ideology.
Second, traditional socialist thought was anti-nationalist, and leftism in
general rejects nationalism and race in favor of a focus on economics and
class. That means that the two are ideologically distant, especially as
fascism denies class as a legitimate cleavage, and argues that merit means
inequality is necessary in society, often with a 'survival of the fittest'
perspective.
The environmental movement tends to be the opposite of what you describe.
If you look at the Green party in Germany and elsewhere they argue for
decentralized government and an emphasis on individual rights over
governmental power, with the exercise of power by government subject to
strong oversight. Also the Left has often opposed both Communism and
Fascism -- while conservatives where supporting Hitler in Germany after
1933, the Social Democrats, who had fought against the Communists, were the
only party to vote against Hitler's enabling act (the Communists were
already illegal and in concentration camps).
So, really, you have a very underdeveloped understanding of political
ideologies, and need to learn a bit more.
David Lentz
Matt Harbon wrote:
<snip>
> Do slander laws restrict your right to speak? What about verbal
> assault or threats? How about saying "BOMB" in an airport or on a
> train? What about lying under oath? How about saying you are a
> homosexual in the military? I could go on and on.
>
> Aren't these examples where your freedom to speak as are justifiably
> limited by government?
>
> I thought so. Next.
In the United State, there are no statutory laws against libel or
slander. Indeed there can not be. They would be obviously
unconstitutional. Libel and slander are not and can not be
criminal offenses.
To what I suspect the above author refers, are common laws
against libel and slander which can be adjudicated after the fact
in civil, not criminal, court.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
mami
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:04:28 GMT, N9NWO <21...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> >The only reason that fascism is defined as "right wing"
> >is that the socialists have been doing the defining.
>
> and Stalin considered him a fellow traveller. After the invasion,
> he was a Fascist.
>
Why then did the Nazis and the Communist beat each other up in
Berlin's streets almost every weekend in Berlin's Corner pubs during
the 1920 to 1933 ? AFAIK the Socialists and Communists were enemies of
the Nazis way before Hitler invaded the USSR according to eyewitness
reports (i.e. my entire extended family from
Berlin).
I have often wondered about the left-wing/right-wing mix-up among
American Libertarians. I guess they can't get around the fact that
right-wing American Libertarians want to be Anti-Nazis. They claim for
example in their justification for 2nd amendment rights, that if the
Nazis wouldn't have introduced gun-control laws (of which I don't know
even if they did) the Holocaust would never have happened.
The fact is that right-wing or simply conservative American
Libertarians do support with their "freedoms at any price" attitude
the flourishing of Neo-Nazis in Germany, which is "quite funny". AFAIK
the Nea-Nazis in Germany have cozy relationships with fundamentalist
Islamic groups and don't mind the connection to Sadam Hussein and they
are anti-Semitic, whereas the the Republican or otherwise
right-wing/conservative Libertarians in the U.S. right now are against
fundamentalist Islam and not necessarily anti-Semitic. Or where do
stand conservative/right-wing/Republican Libertarians vis a vis the
Israel/Palestine conflict today ?
> Of course, the Fascists had always been socialists, but the Communist
> Parties of the world made a planned and considered effort to ignore
> that fact, because it was believed that the US would be less willing
> to provide wartime aid to the USSR if the US public had that brought to
> its intention.
>
> Of course, policy makers in the US and the UK went along with the lie,
> because it served their wartime goals.
>
> Fascist == right wing was a very carefully executed bit of political
> propaganda.
>
> But it was always founded in a lie.
>
> --
> I could climb the very highest Himalayas,
> be among the greatest ever tennis players,
> Win at chess, marry a princess,
> or study hard and be an eminent professor.
> I could be a millionaire, play the clarinet, travel everywhere,
> learn to cook, catch a crook, win a war and write a book about it.
> I could paint a Mona Lisa, I could be another Caesar,
> compose an oratorio that was sublime,
> The door's not shut on my genius, but
> I just don't have the time.
> -- Michael Flanders and Donald Swann
Kevin Bankert
"N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote in message news:3C9B3A7C...@gte.net...
>
> The only reason that fascism is defined as "right wing"
> is that the socialists have been doing the defining.
>
> they are not fascists but libertarians. They believe in
> little to no government involvement in their lives. Fascism,
> like socialism, is a government ran (top down) form of
> society. These folks want no part of either socialism
> nor fascism.
>
> By their view, all forms of governmental control are left
> wing. Total freedom, economic and social, in their view
> is right wing.
>
I think we've all seen this quote:
"Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist,
liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria. The human race
divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those
who have no such desire."
--Robert Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
That's the irreducible truth of the matter. To me, a fascist is no
different than a socialist, in that they both believe that people are in
dire need of governing--they just have slightly different aproaches.
Scott Erb
"Kevin Bankert" <kevi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:_6Om8.8668$iL5.2...@typhoon1.se.ipsvc.net...
> >
> "Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist,
> liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria. The human
race
> divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those
> who have no such desire."
> --Robert Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> That's the irreducible truth of the matter. To me, a fascist is no
> different than a socialist, in that they both believe that people are in
> dire need of governing--they just have slightly different aproaches.
To those of us who spend our lives studying political systems and how
politics operates, such vast oversimplification is easily dismissed.
Almost everyone but a tiny miniscule minority believes some form of
government is appropriate, but their reasons and ideas about how the world
and governance is to develop varies widely.
The world is far too complex, and social systems far too diverse, to be put
into some silly little dichotomy. After all, my own political ideology sees
government as necessary to help create a system with maximum freedom and
liberty, and minimal control by powerful actors. The rub: it's not just
governments that can control and coerce, and absent what we call
'government' the door would be left open for other actors who can gather
power to use it in ways that can't be held accountable to the people.
Things ain't as easy as slogans from a book often make it sound. That's
reality.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>> Fascism, Communism and socialism are all anti-liberal, if you use the
>> classical meaning of the word.
>
>That may go too far. There are mixes of socialism and
>liberalism in modern social democracy.
Given that the classical meaning of "liberalism" was "free from government
restraint", I don't see much liberalism in modern social democracy.
--
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house.
-- Robert Heinlein
Jeffrey C. Dege
>jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in message news:<slrna9mgdi...@jdege.visi.com>...
>>
>> and Stalin considered him a fellow traveller. After the invasion,
>> he was a Fascist.
>>
>Why then did the Nazis and the Communist beat each other up in
>Berlin's streets almost every weekend in Berlin's Corner pubs during
>the 1920 to 1933 ?
Because they were competing for membership among the same segment
of society.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
>That is the goal.
The government operates by confiscating private money. Only by
allowing private speech can the government be countered. The
government controls the armies.
>P.S. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the
>hell you want whenever the hell you want.
Exactly right. Those fellows in 1776 were clearly seditious.
--
Jim Riley
awestport
> > Fascist "corporatism", where the state controls all industry while
> > retaining nominal private ownership, is indistinguishable from either
> > socialism or Communism in practice.
>
> No, that is WAY off base. Corporatism fascist style
> gives considerable power to the private owners, who
> collude with government, but are not controlled by it.
Owners of German industry were taxed at rates sometimes approaching
90%. Some were shot if they resisted. Their production rates, hirings,
firings, and product designs were dictated to them by the government.
Many companies were even taken over and run by government hacks.
> It is not a centrally planned economy (though in war
> all economies lean that way),
Sorry, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy both had centrally planned
economies.
> nor is it based on creating equal outcomes and the like.
> The differences are immense. Not that either is good, but they are
> very different.
Communism (as implemented by humans) has never, ever been about
"creating equal outcomes". It has always been about domination, and
maintainig a powerful "government class" to rule over "the people".
Even in countries who now practice "liberal socialism", there is
resentment of the "government elite"
In practice, there is little difference between Fascism and
Communism...
1) In both systems, the needs of the society are placed above the
needs of the individual. Individual rights are crushed for the
"greater good".
2) In both systems, the economy is centrally planned by the
government.
3) A "cult of personality" leader with dictatorial powers is needed to
influence enough people and "implement" both systems.
4) In one system, the government owns and controls industry. In the
other system, the government controls and heavily taxes industry.
5) Both systems kept people from revolting by force and the promise of
some sort of utopian dream (communism -> "classless society" fascism
-> "pure society")
Are there differences? Sure, a few minor ones, but if you looked at
the plight of people in Germany and Russia in 1938, then compared both
of these to America, America would stand out as starkly different from
two countries that were really in many ways, simmilar.
Mike Skutnik
> Mike Skutnik <msk...@big.spam.net.net> wrote in message news:<3C99B4E5...@big.spam.net.net>...
> > N9NWO wrote:
> >
> > > The CFR is about limiting speech, especially those
> > > who are critical of government. It will put the extremists
> > > out of business.
> >
> > And anyone who pays for a campaign ad for or against a politician >within the 60 day window of an
> election is defined as an 'extremist.'
> >
> > Anyone.
> >
> >
>
> Look, the general idea of CFR is to even the playing field. This is
> not rocket science and takes a little common sense.
>
> You can't have a bunch of rich, well-financed, special interest groups
> tilting the course of an election through hugely influential media
> mudfests. It severely undermines the opportunity of the "poor man" to
> get his message out.
> (snip)
>
> Get the private money out of the process. Even the playing field.
> That is the goal.
I know I've answered this once before, but here's a bit more based on new information.
First, there are some distinctions that the SCOTUS made in their decision, and some things that are not
so crystal clear.
The court ruled that a person could give to a candidate $1,000. (I think this is the so called 'hard
money.') Even though this is against the 1st, the court ruled that the prevailing interest of the gov to
hold fair elections was more important than the individual right.
The CFR *increased* this limit to $2,000. Also, if you are giving the money to a candidate that is
running against a self financed rich person, the limit goes *up* to $6,000.
So 'private' money is actually *doubling* in the new CFR bill.
Next, the court ruled that a candidate could spend all of his/her money that was donated to the
campaign. No limits.
I believe this is unchanged in the CFR bill.
Next, a 'rich' person can use an unlimited amount of his/her own money to spend on his/her own campaign.
Also unchanged, except that now the opponent can raise *more* money than normal to compensate for the
other's riches.
Finally, the court ruled that a (legal) person could purchase ads, commercials, etc, to put forth a
political view, including trying to persuade others in voting a particular way. This was specifically
stated as part of the 1st Amendment. This included candidate ads, commercials, etc. (And, by extension,
there is no limit on the amount of money a 'person' can spend on these items.)
This is the area that the CFR changed. Individuals can not purchase ads and have them air 60 days and
closer to an election. Candidates can.
Individuals can not mention names in their ads. Candidates can.
In the area of soft money, I did not see a court ruling. So, I assume that it was an invention of the
congresscritters to get around the $1,000 (now $2,000 or $6,000) personal, direct contribution.
I have heard that soft money is now banned by the CFR. So, giving money to a political party to use in
funding a campaign is illegal. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
There is also several new loopholes regarding 'get out the vote' programs that allow for spending
millions. Guess that's the next thing they will 'fix' when all the campaign ads are classified as 'go
and vote' types.
So, your idea that private money is going away doesn't seem to wash. It's actually going to *double.*
Imagine that.
Regards,
Mike
classicliberal2
> For libertarians, the ultimate goal is
> no government. That is how they
> see the constitution.
___
That is, of course, self-contradictory--the
U.S. Constitution establishes a government.
Favoring the approach of the Constitution
means favoring a government.
___
>>> which only looks at government ran
>>> societies such as socialism, fascism or
>>> communism. He is outside of that
>>> model as he sees all forms of
>>> government control as left wing, to
>>> include fascism. He is a libertarian who
>>> wants no (or at least extremely little)
>>> government involvement in both his
>>> economic and social life.
>>
>> Ah, so it is propaganda for the second
>> purpose. That's easy to dismiss.
>> Conservatism and right wing thought
>> is traditionally statist and supports
>> authoritarian anti-individualist approaches
>> to governance. The right-left continuum
>> is not one of "liberty" vs. "socialism."
>> There is no single continuum to define
>> politics, that kind of simplistic thinking has
>> been rejected long ago.
>
> It is not for propaganda. These guys truly
> believe this.
___
Then they're ignorant fools.
___
> And they are anything but
> statist.
___
The right-wing American "Libertarians,"
favor a government exactly as powerful
and centralized as is necessary to enforce
their notions of property rights and
contracts--in practice, a very powerful
government, indeed.
And, of course, favoring any government
makes one, by definition, a "statist." (In
"Libertarian" propoganda, the phrase is
frequently thrown as an insult, which
doesn't speak very highly of the intelligence
of "Libertarian" propogandists).
___
> They hate any form of government
> as being destructive to the individual.
___
They advocate a more benign form of
dictatorship--it only exists to enact their
very rigidly-defined a priori notions of what
government is and should do, and is not
subject to popular control.
Scott Erb
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrna9ndd1...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:09:13 -0500, Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
wrote:
> >
> >Bert Hyman wrote:
> >>
> >> Fascism, Communism and socialism are all anti-liberal, if you use the
> >> classical meaning of the word.
> >
> >That may go too far. There are mixes of socialism and
> >liberalism in modern social democracy.
>
> Given that the classical meaning of "liberalism" was "free from government
> restraint", I don't see much liberalism in modern social democracy.
Your "classical meaning" is a bit off -- John Locke even talked about the
role of government that opens the door to societal concerns and some see
that as supporting the roots of modern social democracy.
But the fact is all "real world" political systems are mixes, no "ism" can
be turned into reality in a theoretically pure manner. Thus, what exists
represents mixes of various perspectives. Reality is always messier than
theory.
Scott Erb
> On 22 Mar 2002 13:49:10 -0800, mami <inter...@my-school.com> wrote:
> >jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in message
news:<slrna9mgdi...@jdege.visi.com>...
> >>
> >> Yep. Up until Hitler invaded the USSR, he was a National Socialist,
> >> and Stalin considered him a fellow traveller. After the invasion,
> >> he was a Fascist.
> >>
> >Why then did the Nazis and the Communist beat each other up in
> >Berlin's streets almost every weekend in Berlin's Corner pubs during
> >the 1920 to 1933 ?
>
> Because they were competing for membership among the same segment
> of society.
They were also ideological foes. Communism was anti-nationalist,
rationalist, objectivist and focused on class as the main societal cleavage
and economics as the focus.
Fascism was ultra-nationalist, anti-intellectual, irrational, and denied
class as a cleavage and put politics and "will" above economics.
The two were antithetical ideologies. Almost any book on political ideology
would explain that to you.
Scott Erb
"awestport" <awes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:427e5468.02032...@posting.google.com...
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C9B8159...@maine.edu>...
>
> > > Fascist "corporatism", where the state controls all industry while
> > > retaining nominal private ownership, is indistinguishable from either
> > > socialism or Communism in practice.
> >
> > No, that is WAY off base. Corporatism fascist style
> > gives considerable power to the private owners, who
> > collude with government, but are not controlled by it.
>
> Owners of German industry were taxed at rates sometimes approaching
> 90%. Some were shot if they resisted. Their production rates, hirings,
> firings, and product designs were dictated to them by the government.
> Many companies were even taken over and run by government hacks.
>
> > It is not a centrally planned economy (though in war
> > all economies lean that way),
>
> Sorry, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy both had centrally planned
> economies.
No. Once the war started, of course, economies even in "liberal" states
underwent real planning, including the US. But pre-war Germany was not a
centrally planned economy, nor was pre-war Italy.
Where are you getting your information?
> > nor is it based on creating equal outcomes and the like.
> > The differences are immense. Not that either is good, but they are
> > very different.
>
> Communism (as implemented by humans) has never, ever been about
> "creating equal outcomes". It has always been about domination, and
> maintainig a powerful "government class" to rule over "the people".
> Even in countries who now practice "liberal socialism", there is
> resentment of the "government elite"
Certainly Stalin was not about communism -- he was about personal power.
One lesson of communism is a desire to create a utopia based on a theory led
to centralization and abuse of power. The experience of communism is one of
the strongest arguments for a real democratic republic where people have
oversight over the exercise of power and governance out there.
But ideologically, it was a far left extreme, while ideologically fascism
was far right, based on different principles and ideals -- antithetical
ideals.
> In practice, there is little difference between Fascism and
> Communism...
There were many differences, but each was brutal and repressive. But the
ideologies were very different, one was far right, the other far left. Far
right and far left taken to an extreme demand that those who have power try
to enforce their ideology on others. Any time an ideological view of how
society "should be" is enforced on others, that will lead to similar abuses
of human rights.
> 1) In both systems, the needs of the society are placed above the
> needs of the individual. Individual rights are crushed for the
> "greater good".
That was also the argument of traditional conservatism and monarchism, which
was definitely not far left, and in fact was the major impetus for early
conservative thought.
> 2) In both systems, the economy is centrally planned by the
> government.
Not so in fascist systems, their influence on the economy is more subtle and
often fragmented. Communism is purely centrally planned.
> 3) A "cult of personality" leader with dictatorial powers is needed to
> influence enough people and "implement" both systems.
Sometimes, though communism in the USSR and East Europe often became more
bureaucratic than personalized. But a cult of personality is also used in
conservative monarchies. Clearly the method can be used by conservatives,
communists, the far right, the far left, etc.
> 4) In one system, the government owns and controls industry. In the
> other system, the government controls and heavily taxes industry.
There is a big, big difference there. After all, industry is heavily taxed
in many European countries, but they ain't anywhere close to fascist!
> 5) Both systems kept people from revolting by force and the promise of
> some sort of utopian dream (communism -> "classless society" fascism
> -> "pure society")
At first any ideological extreme, from conservative theocracy to radical
communism makes such promises -- that's why "isms" that say they know the
objectively RIGHT way to do things are damn dangerous, they rationalize
abuses of power. But in this case while there are similarities in how power
was abused, the "isms" themselves are very different, one far left and one
far right, with antithetical ideological foundations.
> Are there differences? Sure, a few minor ones, but if you looked at
> the plight of people in Germany and Russia in 1938, then compared both
> of these to America, America would stand out as starkly different from
> two countries that were really in many ways, simmilar.
You can compare the plight of people in a number of countries and make the
same claim. But that doesn't deny that Communism was far left, and fascism
far right, and that the two were different ideologies. The lesson: beware
of anyone who claims they have found the objective truth, the right
political approach. They may sound harmless and their view beautiful, but
such is the starting point for hellish nightmares. Democracy is messy, but
the best approach.
Smaug
<mod...@espmail.com> wrote:
> > Fascists aren't right wing, they are profoundly left wing, and
very socialist.
>
> you could not be more wrong, Its' roots came from Nietzche
> and Schopenhauer both of whom preached survival of the
> fittest. Does that sound socialist to you?
Not at all. Even in it's earliest days, Socialism was based on the social
welfare of the people, not survival of the fittest. It always had
sympathy for the lower classes. Hardly Fascist.
> I hope not.
> The neo nazis claim that hitler and they were/are socialists
> but that is all a crock of chicken guano. If you want to
> know more about socio-political mechanisms past and present
> - that was my field and I will help you if I can. Just post
> a message with your questions to me in us.config and i will
> reply by email.
>
> No matter how you label them the Fascisti of Mussolini and
> Generalissimo Franco are the model and while Mussolini came
> to power as a socialist once he secured his position he
> turned into a dictator.
Actually, Mussolini merely supported whichever side he thought would give
him power while he was a Fascist. When the best chance of gaining power
lied with the left, he portrayed himself as a left-winger. When it became
clear it laid with the right, he became a right-winger. His actions,
though, overall, were far to the right.
> Franco, backed by Mussolini's
> troops and Hitler's luftwaffe fought the socialist and
> monarchists in the Spanish Civil War.
>
> Now you are going to get more than you ever wanted to know
> about fascism
>
> Fascism (from Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia.)
>
> Fascism was an authoritarian political movement that
> developed in Italy and other European countries after 1919
> as a reaction against the political and social changes
> brought about by World War I and the spread of socialism and
> communism. Its name was derived from the fasces, an ancient
> Roman symbol of authority consisting of a bundle of rods and
> an ax.
>
> Italian fascism was founded in Milan on Mar. 23, 1919, by
> Benito Mussolini, a former revolutionary socialist leader.
> His followers, mostly war veterans, were organized along
> paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as uniforms. The
> early Fascist program was a mixture of left-and right-wing
> ideas that emphasized intense nationalism, productivism,
> antisocialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader.
> Mussolini's oratorical skills, the postwar economic crisis,
> a widespread lack of confidence in the traditional political
> system, and a growing fear of socialism, all helped the
> Fascist party to grow to 300,000 registered members by 1921.
> In that year it elected 35 members to parliament. Mussolini
> became prime minister in October 1922 following the "march
> on Rome" and 3 years of bloody violence. In 1926 he seized
> total power as dictator and ruled Italy until July 1943,
> when he was deposed. A puppet Fascist regime with Mussolini
> at its head nominally controlled northern Italy under the
> Germans until Mussolini's execution by partisans in 1945
> (see Italy, history of). A neo-Fascist party, the Italian
> Social Movement, was founded after World War II, but its
> influence was small.
>
> The Philosophy of Fascism
>
> Fascist ideology, largely the work of the neoidealist
> philosopher Giovanni Gentile, emphasized the subordination
> of the individual to a "totalitarian" state that was to
> control all aspects of national life. Violence as a creative
> force was an important aspect of the Fascist philosophy. A
> special feature of Italian fascism was the attempt to
> eliminate the class struggle from history through
> nationalism and the corporate state. Mussolini organized the
> economy and all "producers"--from peasants and factory
> workers to intellectuals and industrialists--into 22
> corporations as a means of improving productivity and
> avoiding industrial disputes. Contrary to the regime's
> propaganda claims, the totalitarian state functioned poorly.
> Mussolini had to compromise with big business, the monarchy,
> and the Roman Catholic church. The Italian economy
> experienced no appreciable growth. The corporate state was
> never fully implemented, and the expansionist, militaristic
> nature of fascism contributed to imperialist adventures in
> Ethiopia and the Balkans and ultimately to World War II.
>
> The intellectual roots of fascism can be traced back to
> voluntaristic philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer,
> Friedrich Nietzsche, and Henri Bergson and to Social
> Darwinism with its emphasis on the survival of the fittest.
> Its immediate roots, however, were in certain irrational,
> socialist, and nationalist tendencies of the turn of the
> century that combined in a protest against the liberal
> bourgeois ideas then holding sway in Western Europe.
> Gabriele D'Annunzio, Georges Sorel, and Maurice Barres were
> particularly influential.
>
> European Fascism
>
> Closely related to Italian fascism was German National
> Socialism, or Nazism, under Adolf Hitler. It won wide
> support among the unemployed, the impoverished middle class,
> and industrialists who feared socialism and communism. In
> Spain the Falange Espanola (Spanish Phalanx), inspired by
> Mussolini's doctrines, was founded in 1933 by Jose Antonio
> Primo de Rivera (1903-36). During the Spanish Civil War, the
> Falange was reorganized as the Falange Espanola
> Tradicionalista by Gen. Francisco Franco, who made it the
> official party of his regime. Of less importance were the
> Fascist movements in France and the British Union of
> Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley. Fascist movements sprang
> up in many other European countries during the 1930s,
> including Romania (see Iron Guard), Belgium, Austria, and
> the Netherlands. Fascist groups rose to power in many of the
> countries under German occupation during World War II. In
> France the Vichy Government of Marshal Philippe Petain was
> strongly influenced by the Action Francaise, a movement that
> shared many ideas with fascism. The collaborationist
> Quisling government in occupied Norway also espoused a
> fascistlike ideology. The defeat of Italy and Germany in the
> war, however, spelled the end of fascism as an effective,
> internationally appealing mass movement.
>
> Reviewed by Philip Cannistraro
>
> Bibliography: Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of
> Totalitarianism, rev. ed. (1966); Bessel, R., Fascist Italy
> and Nazi Germany (1996); Blinkhorn, Martin, ed., Fascists
> and Conservatives (1990); Cassels, Alan, Fascism (1975); De
> Felice, Renzo, Interpretations of Fascism, trans. by B.
> Everett (1977); Fond, G., Fascist Europe (1993); Gregor,
> James, Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of
> Fascism (1979); Griffin, Roger, ed., The Nature of Fascism
> (1995); Hoyt, E. P., Mussolini's Empire: The Rise and Fall
> of the Fascist Vision (1994); Morgan, Philip, Italian
> Fascism, 1919-1945 (1995); Payne, Stanley G., Fascism: A
> Comparative Approach toward a Definition (1980) and Fascism,
> 1914-1945 (1996) ; Thurlow, Richard, C., Fascism in Britain (1987).
>
> You might want to read Hannah Arendt. She was a terrific
> scholar and a fine writer. She taught at Princeton, Chicago
> U and the New School in NY from 1952 until her death in
> 1975. Books: The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), The
> Human Condition (1958), Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), On
> Revolution (1963), On Violence (1970), Crises of the
> Republic (1972), and The Life of the Mind (1977)
--
To email me, remove "NOSPAM" from my address.
Smaug
gillih...@hotmail.com (Maha) wrote:
> Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3C9AE14E...@espmail.com>...
>
> I appreciate the effort, but the "fascists are left wing" types
> provide clear proof of a genetic connection between modern homo
> sapiens and neanderthals. Not the sharpest crayons in the box, as it
> were. There's no point wasting your time trying to teach them
> anything.
Indeed. The idea that the Fascists are left-wing has been refuted time
and again on this newsgroup. The people who still claim it are almost
invariably uninterested in whether their claim is truthful or not. Still,
even though the "Fascists are left-wingers" types may not be interested in
truth, lurkers in the newsgroup may be interested and refuting posts may
make the difference between the people believing that the Fascists are
left-wing or believing they're right-wing, so refuting them does serve a
purpose. Hell, I think this is the whole point of the left-wingers
refuting the right-wingers at all on this group.
> > fittest. Does that sound socialist to you? I hope not.
> > The neo nazis claim that hitler and they were/are socialists
> > but that is all a crock of chicken guano. If you want to
> > know more about socio-political mechanisms past and present
> > - that was my field and I will help you if I can. Just post
> > a message with your questions to me in us.config and i will
> > reply by email.
> >
> > No matter how you label them the Fascisti of Mussolini and
> > Generalissimo Franco are the model and while Mussolini came
> > to power as a socialist once he secured his position he
> > turned into a dictator. Franco, backed by Mussolini's
Le Mod Pol
>
> Aside to Le Mol Pol: You call be corrupt and the feds will not
> come to arrest you. Call John McCain corrupt in a ad within
> sixty days of a federal election and the feds will come to get
> you. See the difference?
>
> McCain has been boosting how what he calls attack ads are banned
> by his bill. McCain guts the First Amendment and wants to
> treated as if he were a some kind of hero.
>
I think you put your head on backwards this morning!! `(:~)>
Le Mod Pol
>
> Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C9AE14E...@espmail.com>...
>
> I appreciate the effort, but the "fascists are left wing" types
> provide clear proof of a genetic connection between modern homo
> sapiens and neanderthals. Not the sharpest crayons in the box, as it
> were. There's no point wasting your time trying to teach them
> anything.
Of course but it is nice (and fun) to give them something
they have to work to read and with which they can not argue
because it came from an encyclopedia and complete with a
dozen references in the bibliography. They will try but can
only squirm. I just posted the same article in us.legal in
a follow up to a gun nut who said the "liberal fascist
mayor............"
But it can be fun to watch the illiterate and the ignorant squirm.
`(:~)>